I think many people, especially in America, like having things like Freedom of Speech, Freedom to carry firearms, multi-party system, and electing their leaders. A Fascist state may look like China. It may become more about protecting the Party and not the Nation. I know I like my freedoms. I don't want Fascist to take them away.

That is a very strict definition of what fascism would do.

There were many fascist organizations in Europe in the beginning of the century, their policies varied. Policies change, but the basic goal is the same. Fascism is when the good people are in control and hold down the bad people. As opposed to conservatism where the good allow the bad to work freely for the sake of freedom. Fascism is traditional and decent folks who won't take any more crap.

In a fascist country you would find that you would have a lot more freedom than you have today. The things that would be forbidden: non-White immigration, perversions, drugs, trade with non-Whites most of the time. Things normal folks don't engage in anyway. As for dictatorship the best in society would be eligible for party membership. A country where the best and brightest debate the future seems a lot better to me than having my vote cancelled out by people who spend more time watching America's Got Talent than reading up on the policies of those they vote for.

Quote from Spain: "In Franco's time you could go out for the day without locking the door." That is fascism.

While I disagree with you on your feelings on political freedom, I definitely agree with this statement. Traditional Democracy, where everyone is deemed fit to vote simply by merit of the fact that they exist, is the biggest sham in the history of the world. It's a system doomed for total and complete failure.
Personally, I've always liked the Athenian form of Democracy, simply on principle. Only a select few were allowed to vote, and those that were allowed had earned it by becoming self-sufficient.

That is a lot closer to fascism than to today's democracy, I believe. Letting those who have proven themselves be the ones to discuss the country's future. In an Athenian democracy or in a fascist party. I would approve of the Athenian democracy you talk about, but I suspect it would inevitably open up the door for everyone to vote in the end. There would always be parties that would advocate that development in the hope of gaining support - gaining funding and feet in the street.

People are scared of Fascism because they percieve it to be a certain way, and they don't want to live the way they percieve it (and they percieve it as a negative govt. controls all and I have no freedom in any regard type of way). Their preception is wrong, but because they don't think so, they still hate fascism.

Given the choice between fascism and democracy, I would choose fascism because I believe democracy to be fundamentally flawed in principal.

People are scared of Fascism because they percieve it to be a certain way, and they don't want to live the way they percieve it (and they percieve it as a negative govt. controls all and I have no freedom in any regard type of way). Their preception is wrong, but because they don't think so, they still hate fascism.

Given the choice between fascism and democracy, I would choose fascism because I believe democracy to be fundamentally flawed in principal.

I completely agree. Fascism is a noble system and it is based on meritocracy, not petty popularity contests, or as Americans like to call them, "elections".

People are scared of Fascism because they percieve it to be a certain way, and they don't want to live the way they percieve it (and they percieve it as a negative govt. controls all and I have no freedom in any regard type of way). Their preception is wrong, but because they don't think so, they still hate fascism.

Given the choice between fascism and democracy, I would choose fascism because I believe democracy to be fundamentally flawed in principal.

There is little difference in Fascism and the Socialist state in that both are totalitarian in their scope and reach.

Would it be possible for Fascism to be implemented on a more decentralised, autonomous scale rather than a centralised governmental scale. Is it an ideology open to interpretation? I like some of the ideas but am not a fan of strong centralised states, I just don't think they've ever been proven to work in our favour, not in the long run anyway.

Well you would have a point if Hitler actually was elected. But he wasn't.

Contrary to popular belief, the Nazi Party did not receive the Majority vote. They only had about 36%. What actually happened was that President Hindenburg appointed Hitler to a secondary position as Chancellor of Germany.

As the man himself said:

"Sooner will a camel pass through a needle's eye than a great man be "discovered" by an election." - Adolf

Hitler may not have had the 51%, but he was the largest party in the Reichstag and then entered into a coalition with the parties of the right, with the deal that Hitler would be chancellor . Hitler became chancellor through the democratic process as it existed under the Weimar Government.

Quote:

Since when have we had those rights? I think cases like that of Terry Tremaine and Ernst Zundel show that we dont! We live in a double standard world with double standard "rights".

Certainly these rights are being eroded and such a democracy as you have described hardly bears the name. Your simply comparing the corrupt system of today with the idealised version of fascism and ignore the obvious moral and practical objections to it, the secret police, the concentrations camps, the censorship and the 'disapearances' and the fact that there is nothing to stop dictators making bad decisions which are not in the interest of the nation he rules.

I would say that my ideal democracy is one that is genuine democratic in which it is comprised of one race, with a media which is run by members of that race, rather than the multi-racial mess it is today presided over by a media dominated by an alien minority.

Certainly these rights are being eroded and such a democracy as you have described hardly bears the name. Your simply comparing the corrupt system of today with the idealised version of fascism and ignore the obvious moral and practical objections to it, the secret police, the concentrations camps, the censorship and the 'disapearances' and the fact that there is nothing to stop dictators making bad decisions which are not in the interest of the nation he rules.

I would say that my ideal democracy is one that is genuine democratic in which it is comprised of one race, with a media which is run by members of that race, rather than the multi-racial mess it is today presided over by a media dominated by an alien minority.

The secret police: Are you saying your in opposition to the SS? "Secret Police" are put in Fascist states like Mussolini's Italy for the protection of the people and state.
Concentration camps: I hope your not refering to camps like Auchwitz and the rest... if you are lurk moar.
The censorship: I believe in government censorship if its in the best intrest of the people... which it was.
Disapearances: What "Disapearances"?

WhitePost, there is a difference between Fascism and National Socialism, as I'm sure you know. The "disappearances" you discuss happened mainly in Germany, if I'm not mistaken. These were carried out by a myriad of agencies, not just the SS or Gestapo. A lot of people were taken away by the Kripo, or Kriminalpolizei. In Mussolini's Italy, however, this rarely happened. There was a big difference between Hitler's SS and Mussolini's OVRA. The SS did a lot more "bad" things than the OVRA did. What you described is a hallmark of Hitler's personal brand of National Socialism, not Fascism.

I cant stress enough that National Socialism and Fascism ARE NOT the same thing. I think Hitler based "Nazism" off of Italian Fascism but they are both different in theory. Besides the people that "dissapeared" under Hitlers rule would have been people who posed a threat to Hitlers government like what happend on the Night of the long knives.